Re: Tire size comparison.

Posted by HH56 On 2013/12/30 10:41:51

The whole radial vs bias is a controversy. Each gets kudos and bricks so it boils down to what is most reliable and economical on the long term.

The specs I mentioned are what Diamondback posts in their catalog so the conversions are theirs. The main reason Diamondbacks are getting my attention is because they are available thru one of the PAC regions and so many have had nothing but good to report with the tires and with their conversion. Not so the Cokers or some of the other "classic" brands.

I don't have experience with radials on anything but modern cars driven regularly. Don't know if they have the same problem with sitting as bias does -- namely the fact bias tires become square if stationary for long periods. I've heard radials also deform but are much easier and quicker to revert back when driven. Bias tends to permanently acquire a flat surface -- at least that is my experience. Anyone have experience with long term stationary radials?

On a car destined to sit a lot, bias would be the economical choice and is available locally -- as are the Cokers if I want to take a chance my set would be one of the good ones. Luck being what it is, the set I bought would be one where tread separates or the tire goes flat without cause so they are not under much consideration.

If radials get the nod, still contemplating the 700R15 vs the regular 215/75 radial equivalent to the original size. The diameter is an issue to consider but one nice thing on the 700's is if specs are correct, they should also fit the 56. As to the inflation pressure, Diamondback also recommends fairly high pressure on the regular radials so not sure how much extra harshness is to be expected.